Shtuggie

Well done Simon, don't want anyone to take away any of the shameful spotlight shining on Taylor.

Another Whitewash? What the hell is going on?

Why do they spend the whole interview speaking about the wee rat looking git!?

He does indeed get torched! GIRUY Taylor!

Hope Taylor gets torched. Why are players like Chisnall in and James Wade out!?

Bet Details Date/Time Stake Return Man Utd @ 4/11 Motherwell @ 19/20 Kilmarnock @ 29/20 Newcastle @ 11/8 Everton @ 6/4 5 Folds, 1 bet * £5.00 20/12/2013 13:35:07 5.00 193.41 Total for this period 5.00 193.41 Not too bad this weekend. I run a thing at work where five or six of us pick a team and stick in a pound. This season we have bet 20 each and won 100 each so 80 quid up.

Going to the Man City Champions league game on Wednesday. Hopefully they put on a show.

Smashed through seasons 3 -5 as had seen seasons 1 and 2. Brilliant. Almost gutted to have finally finished - no more left!

needle

Just bought this and it arrived today - excellent. Have a greenie

Gareth Bale on the right... I thought he didn't drink?

Bootleg drugs would be a tiny market, yes. There would still have to be serious policing costs in shutting the guys down, though. As you said, drug dealers are the only ones who stand to lose, so they will try and keep their livelihood. Whataboutery it may be, but it was a perfectly reasonable assumption. As mentioned above, drug dealers are the only ones who stand to lose. Although drug addicts value their own life, addiction can do strange things and it is reasonable to suggest that drug dealers will try to undercut the legal prices with all kinds of substitutes that people WILL turn to in desperation. As me talked about earlier in the thread, we are both here to be educated. I am merely interesting in finding out more from someone who clearly knows a lot about the subject, and asking hypotheticals seems the perfectly logical way to do it. Also this debate interests me from both sides and you were getting no reasonable questions and objections from those against legalisation so I wanted to help them out with some reasonable objections.

The statistics from Vancouver do make for very interesting reading, and it must be said that the initiative there has to be commended - very good indeed. Not trying to play the economics card here at all, but I do not think it is as simple as taking money from the war on drugs efforts and chucking that into safe havens for users. if we were to tax it to the extent of being able to sustain such centres, the cost of such a drug may be out of the reach of addicts who can get cheaper access currently. How will they continue to afford the drug under legalisation - would they be supplemented by the tax payer? If they could not afford - is it reasonable to suggest that crimes such as robbery and theft would increase? Or would the drug dealers who have suddenly lost their livelihood come up with more dangerous alternatives that these people would turn to in their desperation for a hit? Also, might they be able to illegally gain access to stocks of the now regulated drugs through theft and then dilute them with unsafe supplementary toxins to then sell on cheap to the addicts?

Using your basketball metaphor, this is quite clearly not a slam dunk but an attempted three pointer into the crowd... The crystal meth example is an interesting one. What you are suggesting is that legalisation will result in people using drugs being monitored. How exactly will this happen? Padded locked rooms where they can't get out and interfere with the public? Surely full legalisation and allowing adults to be trusted as to whether they use certain substances means they can use the drug if and when they see fit? Surely legalisation implies being able to use such substances, um, in places where there might be members of the public or presumably other drug users who they might harm unknowingly? So, with legalisation of Crystal Meth for example, we would have to spend money on cordoning of specific areas for people to use the drug safely? You cannot monitor someone on a 12 hour high and prevent them from wandering around in areas where they can harm people unless you have tremendous amounts of cash to throw at it. Can you indicate how much we would have to tax such a drug to ensure we at least cover the costs of administrating it safely and ensuring people are monitored until the entire effects of the drug have worn off? Also, where would we have such safe havens for drug enthusiasts? Already over-crowded hospitals? All interesting questions I would be curious to know the answer to. As I have stated, I am in favour of legalisation, but there is a tremendous amount of infrastructure to be put in place before something like that can happen. What would the initial outlay cost? Costs such as research into safe administration, centres for safe and monitored drug use etc. A big chunk to spend before any swelling of the coffers from heavy taxation of the product...

OK - I will happily ride the bus to the next stop. Can you prove that the NUMBER of fatalities would decrease even with increased usage due to safe administration etc? By proof I mean directing me towards some of your research or a URL with articles containing validated statistics from these instances. What I don't mean by proof is you telling me that studies have been shown to reduce harm and use.

OK - you have almost answered my question, but not quite. Numbers can be bent for both sides of many arguments so lets take a hypothetical example. using simple numbers for ease: say 1 in 10 heroin users are harmed under current laws. Like you, I am all increasing the number of users as long as fatalities decrease. However, if the number of users increase by a factor of 3 (you stated even if number of users were to increase dramatically you would support legislation), then we would also need the number of heroin users harmed ratio to decrease by a factor of three. Does regulating a substance such as heroin reduce the harm factor from 1 in 10, to 1 in 30. I.E. does the reduction in harm match up if there was to be a significant number of users? When you say there is well documented evidence to support a fall in harm, is it the actual number of people harmed or just a decrease in the ratio of people being harmed? If it was the latter, then any marked increase in use would invariably result in more people being harmed. That is where I have exposed hypocrasy. If indeed it is the ratio that has reduced, not the actualy numebr of fatalities/people harmed. Which is it? Or do you not know?

I am aware of what you have maintained throughout - as you have said you mentioned it a few times. My point, however muddled, was that although usage has gone down in Portugal for example: a) would that directly relate to the demographic here? b) would we regulate the purity/volume/price of the drugs to exactly the same criteria as they did? I am also asking: Did the ratio of harm:to:usage go down in these countries? My point being that I am also quite happy to have more people using the drug if fatalities go down. However, if usage goes up dramaticallty, the ratio of harm:to:usage would have to reduce dramatically for the actual number of people being negatively affected by drugs to go down. Any increase in use is a huge risk unless there is an overwhelming reduction in the number of people being harmed versus the number of people who are using. Can you provide evidence for this? I will not apologise for a valid point - however muddled.

Just as you feel the need to comment and read other posts, I am allowed to as well. What I have highlights in bold is contradictory to what you have said. You have claimed that people who don't agree with legalisation should look at the figures and agree. You clearly state above that if there were to be figures to suggest that usage would go up with legalisation, then you would still support legalisation? Your hypocrasy if there for everyone to see...so you like figures and facts until they diasagree with your viewpoint? It was a valid citation, but you have just collapsed on yourself... I apologise for calling you a pr*ck, and I did agree when Dom Dom called you an Arsehole, so I apologise for that.

OK - lets take this example. I believe that all facts and scientific evidence indicate christianity and other such religions are false, but people are still allowed to believe what they want. Everyone doesn't have to agree on that. You can take a camel to water and all that... Although I agree with you on legalisation, if I were to play devils advocate and point out that although evidence from Portugal was to point towards a dip in usage, how do you know exactly what the result will be in another demographic? Is it just a straight colleration between the UK and all nations that have tried and suceeded? Is it playing the numbers game in terms of, well it worked for them? I would be interested to know if you have any evidence (and will be interested to read) from your research that suggests it will be just as succesfull in the UK. I also come on here to gauge viewpoints on all manner of topics. As I said, I agree with you on this. Why am I not 'telling' on Dee Man? I am sorry, but I thought you had 'humiliated' and had 'spectacularly' beaten him - why would you care? Amatuer Psycho analysis? Its not even that good... However, anyone could read and see that you are here for much more than interesting debate and to read other peoples view points; you are here to justify yourself to the world and seek to gratification from everyone. Being right is hard... Jesus Christ. Bear with me while I get my violin out...

Thats the point I was making! Much more concise!

I also agree with most (if not all) that he says, but you are correct, he bullies his way to victory rather than articulately putting his point across with a touch of humility. Self-promoted voice of the people - Supras.

As I said - he gained the upper hand very quickly and provides a good argument. The was he goes about doing so is what I am getting at. Personal experiences with drugs are just that - personal. He has no idea what the chap has been through whether he is playing the sob story card or not. Traumatic experiences can dramatically change views, and if someone has had death, serious illness or suchlike in their family through drugs, then they are perfectly entitled to argue against legalisation. That is whether they are right or wrong.

It is the classic debating style of gaining the 'upper hand' and continuing to be a patronising and condescending pr*ck to anyone who doesn't share his opinion. What he fails to understand is that although he provides a good argument for the legalisation of drugs (although if i read 'safe administration' once more today I might tear my face off) not everyone has to agree with that. It is like a devout Christian trying to convince you of their belief in God. I may be able to 'spectacularly beat' them in a debate concerning their beliefs, but I certainly wouldn't stoop to insulting their intelligence and try to bring them to my line of thinking - they are allowed to think that! Supras seems to be the kind of guy who can't stand the idea of someone not agreeing with him, and likes to spend his day congratulating himself on beating everyone in debates. Not only do some people not agree with you Supras, but some people also find you a tedious intolerable bore.

Had a wee win last night: Hibs draw no bet Dundee United draw no bet St mirren draw no bet over 2.5 goals in st johnstone dundee game had a four fold accumulator - fiver would return seventy quid. But got 22 quid back after the draw no bet for HIbs and Dundee united games.